Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 05-07-1975PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA I May 7, 1975 A regular meeting of the .Plymouth Plannj,, q Co, piss'ion was called to order by Chairman Kroskin, at 7,30 p.m, in the 16-anci l Chambers of the Public Works :Building, 14900 - 23rd Avenue North, MEMBERS PRESENT:: Chairma-. Kroskin, Commissioners Hagen, Erickson, Davenport, Schneider, -'Stewart, and Thre nen, MEMBERS ABSENT: bone STAFF PRESENTS Charles Dillerud, Milt Dale, Kate Marx and John Meyer, Planning Intern OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Duntley, YAAC Representative Chairman Kroskin opened the Public Informational Meeting at 7.30 p.m. A orpe Development and Securj -I-es Inc. A -498 RPUD Chairman Kroskin explained the procedures for an RPUD to the audience. He stated that this was a public "informational" meeting - not a public hearing at this. point of the procedure, It is'a review of this particular development it its concept stage* The reason for this is to give the citizens a chance to view it and ask some questions as well as make any comments theyfeeltobepertinent. Staff directed the attention of the Commissioners to several points of concern not all of which were voiced in the Staff report to the Commission:: Project Den sit --The area designated is quilled LA -1. This plan was aTc opttE'a b%,_, t e City Council and the RPUD provi des that density for a project may be calculated on either the Land Use Guide Plan or the zoning district. LA -1, may allow up to 3 units per acre. This would come roughly to 81 or 82 units for the subject site. Proposed is 72 units including the remaining Rippe Nouse. The City Council, in their previous rejection, spoke in terms of 62 units. Staff went alongwithhigherthan62unitsdensityfortheprojectatthattime. This time Staff was also of the belief that more than 62 units would .be acceptable for density, The reason Staff felt this way was that the Land Use Guide Plan provides that in the LA -1 areas there will be upto3units, per acre. There is a 50% bonus for good design in an RPUD. It would appear to Staff that there are 2.6 units per gross acre in this proposal or a little more than one-half the possible density bonus, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MIND ES -2- May 7, 1975 density, bonus, Traffic Circulation--There was concern as to how the traffic circulation. would, affect the City and/or the adjoining property owners. Staff consulted the City Engineer about a dead end street and the possible Problems that would be encountered with street maintenance and inpe,-ocular emergency vehicles such as police, fire, and: ambulance access. An alternative to this type of situa barrier tion would be the breakaway- The 75 fot sari called the Bolduc Pro ert --This strip of land isnom; owners ip © e Rippe sisters; Iti's known as the Bolducproperty, The City Councili.in previous action, maintained that this strip of land ought to be included in any development of the Rippe property. The reasons for this are 1) the strip of land will be extremely difficult to develop without extreme variances beinggranted, 2) the band drops significantly and 3) there is a heavy assess- Ment load against that property. Lot #2 of tate single family residences---It would be difficult to developasitistotallymarsh. c:n,tback oroposed for northernmost uadraminium---Staff felt that: to mffntain t e crlt?r5o insu at ng a 7 er,ng density to the north this unit should be redesigned to provide a full 75 foot setback tothenorth. LUGP and the Trail System--It wouldl bco P e r a good idea if the City couldextentta system l. meseYo r to the Take n ,at area. This.. should' be perhaps discussed in the preliminary plat stage of the RPUD since "fit .4s rather a detailed item at this pV nt: Commissioner Threinen asked if it was Staff's opinion that this design was significantly better than the previous design for the site for the densityProposed., Staffresponded that the design now proposed is appropriate forthedensitynorproposed. Commissioner Stewart asked if the architectural designs were availableforthebxaildings. Mr. Goe Beach, representing Thorpe stated that the architecture had not even reached the drawing board yet. They were stillinpreliminarystagesasfarastheunitsgo. Mr. Joe Beach, Thorpe representative, stated that the approach that the f iorpe company took to the development of the Rippe property was multiple.: They tried to combine all the concerns ,of the homeowners. As to density,: they said they felt fire in their need to be in the density proposed becausethesiteisaveryhillysiteandisdifficulttoworkandisexpensive. There are a great number of assessments on the property right at the moment; As to circulation, they said they realized this was the greatest corcern of the citizens living in the area, Mr. Beach stated that the companywouldbeagreeabletoanysolutionthattheCitywasagreeableto. AsdevelopershestatedThorpewouldbeneutralontheissue. Pl.ANNIHB COM14ISSIOR MECTING M114UTES -3'- May 7, 1975 As to tae 75 foot setback, Mr, Beach stated that the Thorpe company wouldbeWillingtoengineerthesitetoprovicefora75footsetback. There are several alternatives which have already been discussed within the com- pany:and with the homeowners. As to the 75 foot strip on 28th Avenue and West Medicine take Boulevard, Mr. Beach stated that the company decided not to buy It because it has no value to the company., Chairman Kroski.n asked about the type of structure that wouldbe built for the quadraminiums. fir. Beach stated that unfortunately Minnesota does` not have any good examples of what they, had in mind, California and: Florida have built, the type of units they would be proposing, Mr. Beach responded that the concept was to start with a big building andprovidesomeidentitywithintheunit., There would be wooded exteriors, to blend with the natural surroundings and as little sodding as possible. Pari ng would be constrained and kept inside the b-aildings as much as possible There would be some sodding around the lots themselves but as littleasPossibletopreservethenatureinthearea. The Commissioners asked Mr. Beach what the reaction would be to removal of the one quadraminium unit to the north. He stated that he would be agreeable to engineering the unit differently however he was sure the company would not want to remove it entirely, Commissioner Hagen pointed out that the 75 foot setback would have any single family dwelling looking at a pretty large home as far as the quadra- minium units only 75 feet away. Commissioner Davenport .questioned what form of ownership of the property would :exist.. Mr, Beachresponded . tha,ThThorpe 4orpnheR es felt t rtespp best to sell the units -4 -the owners of the units could have their own options as to renting or whatever thcy would` choose, They also suggested a common homeowners' association mip,it decide any rules and/or regulations in this regard. The single family welling tw,,iers will have their option to join the homeowners association, however, ownership should probablybeconsideredmandatoryforthequadraminiumdwellers, Commissioner Erickson asked if the single family lots were part of the over all development as related to the homeowners' association, Mr. Beach responded that they would participate in the ownership of the open space and therefore were- part of the total development: Commissioner Schneider asked if the idea for 8 boat slips was a realistic and. practical situation. Now will rules be enforced? If there are 70 units, theoretically 70 boats could be on the water. Mr. Beach responded that the homeowners' association may have to buy the boats as well as control' use of the slips. It will be up to the association to provide the policing. CoMmissioner Davenport asked if Thorpe woulS t,e amenable to placing a condition in their covenance that there be no ;utside storage of boats in the development's parking provisions. Mr. Beach answered that he would have no objection to accepting this as a condition, PLANKING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -q,_ May 7, 1975 Commissioner Schneider questioned. Staff with respect to their proposed trail He stated that in theory it looked good: but in practicality it wasnotasgood. The City would be required to perform a policing action aroundthelake* There are 75 other miles of trail system to police without con- necting onto trail system in this development, Staff responded that this was not a concrete plan as yet and they would notobjecttowithdrawingthissuggestion. It was merely that an around -the - lake -trail system was particularly a goodthing to have in the communitysincetheresourceswereavailableCommissionerThreinenbroughtout the point that privately owned open space is not to be excluded from this type of Ravelopment as per the Goals, Objectives and Criteria, last page, It states that one. of the things t e City s ou eoo,ang or are ways to link the major areas of Interest and Medicine bake is such a major .area of interest Chairman Krosk n opened, the meeting up to comments and questions from the audience. Mr. D. M, Leatherman, representing the 28th Avenue Nanti and Evergreen Fane 6_e borhood presented the Commission with a petition statingthecommunity's objections to the Rippe RPUD as follows: 1f We are content with the density as allowed under the existing regulations applying to single family zoning. 2, We are opposed to any zoning change; or RPUD approval, , whichp would allow any development other than separate single family residents with all the applicable lot regulations as they applytosetbacks, height restrictions, and/or lot area for said single family development. Should the developer find it feasible and desirable to undertake a; sinc°le family development according to existing ordinance, Fre request that the following items be considered: 1. That Evergreen Lane remain a cul-de-sac and that no streets from the development be connected to Evergreen Lane or 28th Avenue North. 2 That all existing pond areas on the site be preserved and maintained in their natural state t That the existing woods be preserved to the level that is humanlypossible," Mr. Leatherman stated that 19 of the 20 homeowners signed the petition. The other was on an extended vacation and was unable to be reached._ Mr. John C. Mullen, a local homeowner, stated his concerns about the tennis courts. These courts: would go up in tit-- densest part of the woods. Drainage around the tennis courts would require a good acre of ground. In addition, there is a 14 to 15 foot diffFrential between the southeast and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES "5- May 7, 1975 west points of the tennis courts, as far as elevation. Also, with respect to the setback required, he and the fellow homeowners felt there should be a. minimum of 100 feet setback and possibly by shiftingthecenterunittothewestitwouldbepossible. As to the proposed marina, Mr, Mullen stated he could see no plausible wayofcontrolling ' tiro 8 boat slips1si evenen Frith the homeowners association. They would only be as strong as everyone allowed them to be, which could mean more boats than were originally planned, Mr. Mullen offered his help in any way possible to the City and Thorpe. Commissioner Threinen pointed out that Mr. Mullen was a Civil Engineer so that his offer of aide was based; on genuine expertise. Mrs Mullen stated' further that he was able to see merit in the RPt10 with some changes beingenacted. Mr, Pat Gorman, another area homeowner asked for greater detail in explanationo?an R - airman Kroskin referred him to the Zoning Ordinance, Chairman Kroskin declared a 5 minutes recess at 9;00 p,m. At 9z05 p.i, the meeting was called back to order. Chairman Kroskin closed the public informational meeting MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen supported by Commissioner Stewart that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council thatthisRPUO #75-1 be approved based on topographic and geographic difficulties of the land, for 28 + acres thereby waivingthe 40 acre requirement with the following condi tions 1 That Lot 2, Block 1 be dropped and that the lots be subdivided in such a manner as to open the pond and prevent building over its 2 Elimination of the northernmost quadram ,litiim unit to reduce density from 56 to 52 units. 3. That attention be directed to acquisition of the north stripknownastheBolducpropertyastherestillremainsaproblem of access along 26th Avenue North and a°problem of building onsuchapieceofland. 4, Cul-de-sacs be created on Evergreen Lane for Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 3 and. Lots 3 and 4 of Block 4 feeding north to 28th Avenue North: 5. That the homeowners' association control the amenities of the site, i.e. tennis courts and boat slips by contract, 5. That the driveway of the Rippe homestead be redirected to open only on to 27th Avenue North PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES -6- May 7, 1975 MOTION to amend: was made b.:- Commissioner Davenport supported by Commissioner Hagen to add to the above motion that the waiving of the 40 acre .requirement be granted for the reasons, that the natural tern«in and the existing eleva- tions of the property consti tutj "unusual feature" and"a feature of impor- tance" not only to the specific neighborhood, but the City at large LOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED The problem for emergency vehiclas was discussed as per the main motion. MOTION to amend was made by Commissioner Erickson supported by ChairmanKroskintostrikethefourthconditionoftheabovemainmotion. Commissioner Schneider asked Staff's opinion regar0ng the motion to amend. Staff stated that the traffic from the proposed RPUD will probably move outto27thAvenueNorthtowardWestMedicineLakeboulevard. It will not backtrack through the existing homes, Site -seers may be apt to use the new street, however. This could be averted by making this a dead-end street; MOTION CARRIED (4-3-0)(Commissioners Hagen, Stewart POTION CARRIED and Threinen against) The main motion as amended was discussed further. The density figures wereagaindiscussed. It was as .,-d that the minutes show how the fiture of 68 dwelling units was arrived at. Commissioner Threinen, stated he dropped Lot 2 of Block l and dropped the northern most quadraminium. This is exclusive of the Rippe property, This drops the number of dwelling ants to 68, 52 of which are attached and 16 of which are single family units. This is 2.4 units per acre gross density. MOTION CARRIED (7-0-0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED The above motion as amended is to be considered recommendation on this particular concept olan that should be forwarded to the City Council and given to the developer at this time. W:3_38 lundgren Brothers Construction A-338 RPUD Staff presented this request for an RPUD on 40 acres known as Mission Trail This is a tract northeast of the Mission Ridge Development proposed for 100` single family units giving a gross density of 2.,5 units per acre. The concept basically calls out the use of single family detached structures, and the park dedication c.nsistent with the over all park dedication of Mission Ridge. The street system proposed is consistent with the over all system of Mission Ridge, Staff noted two basic matters of concern with the request for RPUD. 1. The ultimate usage and configuration of a piece of ground that becomes a remnant between this proposal and 36th Avenue North, This triangle piece of land is involved in a drainage system. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES --7- May 7, 1975 Staff suggested that this is beim land-lockedanlocked to a degree :and also dictating access at 36th. Avenue North and Zachary Lane. c. The trail way segment within the plat itself is of concern It was discussed with the Park Commission last week, The Park Commission as well as Staff are not interested in the City taking ownership of any land that involves a trail that is not on our trail corridor system, It is consistent in some spots but not in all areas. It could be incorporated in the homeowners' associa- tion that may result in this development, Commissioner Hagen questiond the reason petitioner had applied for an RPUD as opposed to a residential subdivision.. There is no unique feature involved Commissioner Hagen further stated that it was his interpretation that the request before the Commission was being used to get away from the homeowners' association on the green open space requ°ired in the Residential Subdivision Unit Plan and to get smaller lots, Planner Dilleru.d responded that this was exactly what the developers had in mind and Staff did not find this inconsistent with the ordinance. Commissioner Pagen stated that a Subdivision Unit Plan would allow for the smaller lots and felt this wouldbe a more appropriate request of the developer, Staff responded that in the Lundgren Oros. Concept Statement there was reference to this issue that well responded to the: criteria, They are proposing to go into a level of housing that Plymouth is as yet unfamiliar with. They are uoing this on their own property adjacent to their own project. Commissioner Hagen asked how the little strip of land, the "remnant", could be developed other than commercial. Staff stated this was one of their li' jor concerns. also, Commissioner Hagen Stated that the constraints around that piece of land confine the property in an extreme manner. The two streets are not going to change either. He said he felt the developer should avail the Commission and Staff with some proposal for use of the "remnant" piece of land. Commissioner Schneider asked how many units could be developed under an SUP for this piece of land. Staff responded that the number would be around' 80 units. Chairman Kraoskin further questioned if the major criteria for ,justifying an RPUD in this case was the level and quality of homes that would be built.. Staff responded that it was a major consideration. Commissioner Threinen pointed out that at a City Council meeting of October29, 1973 Councilman Hunt made a notion on Housing Policy for the City stating that the City consider granting additional units of density credit and the only means available at this time is an RPUD. He further submitted that the Zoning Ordinance was written to include this concept and that Lundgren Dros. were well within that concept. The RPUD was intended to provide a mixture-of housing at a lower cost. Commissioner Stewart stated that when speaking of flexibility of building PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa MINUTES _8_ May 7, 197 as far as income levels,, if anything coming before the Commission is either going to have a unique feature or will consits of 40 acres then why not reduce the lot size in the LA -T guiding. Commissioner Thre;nen answered that this method was not used because it was felt that the City could get decent land treatment and provide for the mixture in housing. A foiiiuli was once considered for granting density credit, however, this is an alternative and allows for good land treatment As well as density credits which lower the cost of homes. Commissioner Hagen stated that he felt tine value of the density should beconsidered, Commissioner Erickson stated that he felt the October 29, 1973 motion by the Council was with respect to housing in Plymouth and did not necessarilymeanRPUDs. Commissionerommis7son Erickson further . h edrstatthat although this request Uprovides a variety of quality housing for as many income levels as practical" as per the RPUD ordinance, this is only one attribute It should fulfill more than: one attribute of the RPUD ordinance, Commissioner Hagen brought up the question of the park in the RPUD He wanted to know if the 40 acres included the park and the lots would be taken from a net lot acreage of 30 acres or if the park land was extraneous and there were actually 40 net acres for 100 single family units. The City has never allowed density for land dedicated as ,park. Planner Dillerud stated that the RPUD ordinance did not necessarily read that way. Commissioner Hagen affirmed that this Commission had: still never taken such an action and considered it a policy of the Commission not to consider land dedicated for park to be used in calculating density. Commissioner Threinen stated that the Commission: should decide whether to treat this issue as an RPUDor not. If it is an RPUD there are certain points to consider but if not, then the Commission is considering a residential subdivision unit development in which case other points deserve considera- tion. In all fairness to the developer the Commission should make this decision and give the developer a direction, Mr. Peter Pflaum, President of Lundgren Bros. Construction spoke to the issue, He stated by way of background, that the Lundgren Bros. Construction Co. was before the Commission previously for Mission Farms property of 417 acres as well as the City Council at which time they had received approval at the concept level. Had they not rut into the problem of the Hennepin County Park Board wanting to buy I,- of the site, they would already have received preliminary approval from the City Council to keep going on the project, Assuming the Hennepin County Park "Board takes that piece of land., Lundgren Brothers is left with only a small portion of their original development, What they are doing on this paruicular 40 acres is In, conformance with the general concept. They are attempting to keep the project moving rather than sitting back and waiting for the Hennepin County Park. Board to take action. With this piece of land on the Mission Farms project :it. has always been the intention to provide housing for the entire spectrum of people in Plymouth. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES *9- May 7, 1975 Mr. Pflaum further stated that through the development oftheplan Lundgren Brothers had gained the support of the people in Plymouth as well as the support of the Metropolitan Council for their genuine concern for the housing`. He indicated that upon consulting with Staff as to procedure and possible approaches to building hones in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, Staff's suggestion was through use of an RPUD The reason for the smaller lots is clearly because they want to get homes in that price range. It is of great concern to Lundgren Brothers that the vast majority of people cannot affordthe ,homes they build. Chairman Kroskin asked what the price range of the present homes theybuildisMr. Pflaum responded that Lundgren Brothers sells 60 to 80 homes per year in the $50,000 to $90,000 range. The lots they proposed in this development range from 8,000 square feet tc 10,000 square feet. Other communities are doing similar things as this Project. Tiv have designed homes to fit on these lots. Corw-alssiover Hagen asked Mr. Pflaum to comment on the "remnant'" piece of land as to future use. He responded that he did not, at the time, feel this was a major issue. However, the point was well taken and Lundgren Brothers would coMply with the Commission request to set a plan for this piece as soon as possible. Commissioner Davenport asked Mr. Pflaum if he would takep a quick glance at the attributes listed for an RPUD in the ordinance and respond as to how this project fits in Commissioner rhreinen referred the Commizsion to the Policy Manual, Policy75-259, ascerting that Lundgren Brothers had hit upon a very strong criteriaandhadfulfilleditwell. He said he slid not 'Feel it necessary for Lundgren Brothers to have to gather up other criteria to meet the RPUD requirement. With respect to criteria "c", higher standards of site and building design through use of trainedand experienced professionals in Land Panning, Architecture, and Landscaping to prepare plans for RPUD's, Mr.. Pflaum stated that the whole PUD was submitted by Roger Clemens from the universityofMinnesotawhoisintheschoolofarchitecture. He certainly qualifies as one of the best in his field and as an expert. McCombs Knutson did the engineering, again an expert firm which whom the City has dealt before. Mr. Pflaum stated that Lundgren Brothers had tried to work with the Part, Board of the City and when they brought Mission Ridge in they were cor„erned that it fit in with this piece of park land. Lundgren Brothers fitted this single family park into make a more meaningful park for the residents. Mr. Pflaum stated that there are only a few significant ways to reduce housing costs and the major one is to reduce lot size. This is Lundgren Brothers' plan. Also, they have made an effort to go out ar.d see what other communities are doing to produce the $40,000 to $50,000 homes. commissioner Erickson asi--1 Mr. Pflaum to explain what dollar figure he etas speaking .of when he said that he was r duci g the cost of a lot by reducing the size,. Mr, Pflaum responded that the Mary Anderson development i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10- May 7, 1975 in Brooklyn Park claims a $2,000 to $3,000 write dawn in their 'proposal for each lot. Commissioner Davenport suggested that the Commission ask the City Council to give the Commissioners -11,ditional direction in terms of the underlyingintentionsoftheRPUD, specifically the weights to be attached to the individual attributes as listed in the RPUD section of the ordinance; Commissioner Hagen stated that as per his rough calculations there were roughly 5 acres of park thereby leaving 100 units to be developed on 35 acres of land in terms of density which is a density of approximately2.85 units per acre. Commissioner Stewart raised concern about the homes which would have back yards abutting Zachary Lane. He brought this to the attention of the developer stating this would be one place in particular where the landscaping design would aide in screening the homes from the street. Commissioner Erickson asked how large the lots on the: north ,f the site would be. Mr. Pflaum stated that they averaged between 8,000 and 10,000 square fleet, Mr. Wire, a member of the audience made a request that the citizens be allowed to see the total development plan for Mission Farms. He said he felt it was difficult to tell what is happening in relation to the entire area on this relatively small parcel', Chairman Kroskin closed the Public Informational Meeting at 10:20 p.m. on the Mission Trail RPUD request. MOTION was made by Commissioner Hagen: supported by Commissioner Schneider that the Commission postpone action: on this request until the next Planning Comiission meeting pending Lundgren Brothers furnishing information as to the possible use of the corner of Zachary Land and 36th Avenue North,. the remnant" piece of land Commissioner Erickson: stated that since there is utilization of smaller lots it is difficult to differentiate this from a subdivision unit project and that the development should relate to some open, space. Because the fats are smaller this should be pant of the plan. MOTION CARRIED (4-3-0) (Commissioners Davenport and Stewart and Chairman Kroskin Against MOTION CARRIED Planner Dillerud reminded the Commissioners that they needed to make a recommendation for the Council at their next meeting to be within the SO day deadline for reconnendation on the concept plan. A -S am san Lumber Campany A-61? Site Plan for Building Addition and Building Relocation PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1>_ May 7, 1975 Petitioner was not present at the meeting to represent the request.' MOTION was made by Cowlissiones Davenport srtpported by Commissioner Schneider to defer action to the next Planning Counission'netting pendingpresenceofpetitioner. MOTION CARRIED (4-3-0) (Commissioners Thre n ,,,, 4agen and Elickson Against) MOTION CARRIED A-441 Belmar Builders A-441 CUR for Day Care School in an Office Building Staff presented this request for a Montessori School on the first floor of the Pox Meadows Building #3, A play area would be developed in the rear of the b0 lding. Movement to and from each part of the complex would be supervised by teachers of the school. Staff recommended approval subject to tine conditions set forth in their report Commissioner Threinen asked if there was presently a cross walk availableforusebythechildren. Staff answered that one did not exist, Chairman Kroskin asked what other Montessori Schools existed in commercialbuildings. Petitioners Cynthia Albrecht and Heidi Dorfineister mentioned two downtown Montessori Day Care Centers one at the Towers and one at the Lemington. Commissioner Threinen asked-; Staff what steps would be necessary to, establish signing and a cross walk, Staff responded that another condition could be added to the resolution and Belmar would then need only to procede to paint the cross walk and order signs for posting. Commissioner Stewart asked about the poss`ble problems of traffic congestion that „fay arise with children arriving and leaving. Petitioners responded that not more than 29 students would be on the premises at one time. These children will probably be split between a morning and afternoon session. The emphasis is on day care not shcooling as such. S+aff noted that six parking spaces should be added, two for instructor andfourforvisitoruse. This is adequate in Staff's opinion.. This is also considered adequate to accommodate ;he turn around parking situation. Chairman Kroskin asked what the ages of the children attending the centerwould-be. Petitioners ..tated the ages are -between 21i and s years of age. Chairman Kroskin asked petitioners what the bathroom facilities would beforthechildren. Petitioners responded that the facilities are subj eeftotheStatecode, There Mould be I bathroom for each 15 children with a toilet and sink in each one plus one sink in the classroom area itself.. Staff commented that Dave Kreager, Administrative Assistant had been-ealing with the State on the Montessori facility. The State was out Tuesday, May G, PLAtlNIK COMMISSION MEET114G MINUTES -12- May 7, 1975 1975 looking at the i* -self in terms of its acceptability for licensingandcertification:. fnspectc, found the site itself acceptable. He only eonmeni, - }Prior neeC9d rearranging which will be doneoy. Belmar. MOTION was mads. chneider supported by Commissioner Threinenthatthereques• ..Aers for a CUP to operate a Day Care CenterandMontessoriPj- t. be granted st:bject to the following conditions: 1. A landscape plan showing the fenced play area, type of fence and Landscape treatment,, by submitted to the Director of PlanningandCommunityDevelopmentforhisapproval' Z. A minimum of 6 parking spaces be required during the first year of operation. S. No Signs be permitted on the exterior of the building. 4. Conditional on the approval and/or certification of petitioner's Day Care C4-nter by 11 appropriate state and county agencies. S. That the pavents be required to bring the children into the building proper, 6. That Belmar establish a crosswalk for sarety and a play area for the children with appropriate signing. 7. The enrollment is not to exceed 29 children in the school subject to the State, fire crudes. MOTION CARRIED (7.p_0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED P& 2 William C.' Sieloff A-612 CUP for Nome Occupation Petitioner was not present to represent his request.' MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen suppor od by Commissioner Davenport to defer action to the next Planning Commission meeting pending presenceofpetitioner., MOTION CARRIED (7-0_0) (All in favor) MOTION CARRIED A-3777 Plymouth Freeway Center A-377 Preliminary Plat Amendment and Site Plan Approval Staff reviewed the changes made in the request of petitioner from the previous meeting.. Petitioner had redrawn the plans to meet code in nearly all respects. The changes are as follows - I. ol1otos1OnCricketInn, the parking spaces have been brought up to Code, PLANNING COMMISSION ISSTON M_~EIIiG MINUTES .13. M ay 1, 1975 2, On Perkins, the site is now up to Code with one exception which was made in the Staff report which was with respect to parkingUPtothepropertylineontheEastboundary. Staff maintainedthatthiswasnotavariancethatwasinconsistentwiththeintentoftheCode. The adjacent property functions as a setback asitisvirtuallyunabletobedeveloped, 3. The lot lines were adjusted; substantially to affect the changesofthesiteplan. C The cul-de-sac has also been realigned. One of the issues that was mentioned at the previous meeting was that Lot 2ofBlock1didnotshowanyintendeduse, as per the requirements of theGeneralDevelopmentPlan. The intention now is for a restaurant.. The sign situation was somewhat unresolved,, Effectively what was beingpetitioned: was to provide three signs on the Cricket structure, all three wall signs., On the Perkins site what was being proposed was to provide a pylon sign reduced to code requirements as to area and height, It wouldinvolve- a minor setback variance which would be insignificant, In addition a shared pylon was proposed which would be 50 feet in height.. It would beonthepropertylineoriented 'to 1-434 north and south traffic. 0 The problem that arises is that the City is allowing heavier uses of a retail nature in the B-1 zone by a planned business development but the Cityisreallynotallowingthemifithastostrictlyapplythe. sign codeOrovisionsbecausethesetypesofbusinessesrequireacertainamount of sign exposure that is greater than is usually seen in the B-1 District. Staff's solution was a compromise situation as follows. The sparred pylon sign be continued as proposed, tie idea being that this shared pylon would provide, the tra„sient exposure that is really requiredforthetypeofusesthataPBDallowspetitionerstogointoaB-1 zone. Secondarily, Staff's solution was to allow the users themselves inn -site Identification oriented to the direction of in -coming traffic. Staff fu tether indicated in discussions, with petitioners that it would not be opposed to a four-sided shared pylon sign to allow exposure to all direc- tions of traffic, I-494 and Highway 55.: Commissioner Threinen stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustments do not themselves have the right to grant variances for signs in districts where those signs are specifically prohibited by ordinance. The proposal asked for signs that were really more suitable for a B--2 shopping district. There was really, a question of legality concerning the signs in this case. The Commission would not be granting a variance but would be changing theordinance, Staff responded that the situation was one of a Conditional Use Permit and by a Conditional Use Permit -it is possible for modifications but not use modifications. The question is whether the- sign situation would beconsideredausemodificationornot. PLANNING COMMISSION M CTING MINUTES -14- May 7, 1975 Ra Harris, developer asked the Commissioners if they had any questions first of all the site plans as submitted with the exception of the sign situation Commissioner Davenport questioned Mr. Harris with respect to the pannedrestaurantforLot2ofBlock1. Mr. Harris responded that their intentwastohavearestaurantwithaliquoroperationforthatsite, He furthercommentedthathatheagreementwithPerkinswasthatnootherfamilytypeofrestaurantbebuiltinthePlymouthFreewayCenter, The issue of the signs was then discussed.. Mr. Harris stated that in regard to the shared pylon they have taken pictures to indicate the :height needed to have the lowest part of the lowest sign on the shared: pylon seen. finless the height of the shared pylon sign can be 50 feet the bottom part of the lowest sign will not be seen by a person in an automobile at all. The Radisson sign is SO feet, The total volume of the three signs for the Radisson including the large hotel sign, the restaurant sign and the smaller notel sign is not dissil lar from what the petitioners were requesting. The easement agreement with HSP allows a pylon of this nature up to 55feetinheight. No others are allowed within the NSP easement. Commissioners expressed their preference for interior lighting on the sign rather than what the Radisson is now using, Mr. Harris stated that Perkins is asking for one free standing pylon signisnottoexceedallowablecode. They do snot have any sort of wall sign configuration as does the Cricket Inn. It would; be oriented towards the Highway 55 traffic. Mr. Harris added that Cricket's request for signs included two wall signs to be located along the elevator shafts and one wall sign to be located over their main entrance. Mr. Ism Adams, representing Cricket, Inns, explained his reasoning for eachohindividualsigns. The major reasons were for identification and visibility for approaching traffic. Mr. Kassell, representing Perkins, voiced similar reasons for requestinghis flm sign located and built the way it was described, ,vainly exposureartaidentification, They would be willing to build the sign to code which would be half of what they normally use on their sites, Planner Dillerud pointed out to the Commission that in previous action on the Ramada Inn the Coirmission had allowed the developers to have one name- plate as well as one wall sign. it is apparent that similar action is not being taken now on`this newly proposed. site plan: MOTION was made by Commissioner Hagen supported by Commissioner Threinen to make the following recommendations to the City Council l., That the, Planning Commission recommend to the. City Council approval: of the Plymouth Freeway Center Preliminary Plat as signed and dated May 7, 1975 by the Chairman of the Planning Commission: PLANING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ..15.. May 7, 1975 2,. That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council appt-oval of the Plymouth Freeway Center Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Business Development consistent with plans thereof as signed and dated May 7, 1975 by the Chairman of the, PlanningCommission; 3. That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Site Plan for Cricket inn (Lot 3, Block 1 Plymouth FreewayCenter) as signed and dated ,May 7, 1975 by the Chairman of the Planning Commission with sign specifications as follow. three wall signs,. one of specifications proposed oriented, to Empire. Lane, one oriented to Highway 55 and one oriented to Eernbrook Lane, subject to Staff approval of a landscape- plan for the 20 foot area adjoining Lhe Perkins Site. 4, That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Site Plan for Perkins (Lot 4, Block 1 Plymouth FreewayCenter) as dated May 7, 1975 by the Chairman of the PlanningCommissionwithsignspecificationsasfollow,, two wall signs, one oriented to Empire Land e,iid one oriented to Highway 55 not to exceed Code requirement; as to height,_ and area as per Section 17, Subdivisf n 1, 2r, subJect to Staff approval of a landscape plan for the 20 foot area adjoining the Cricket site,. Further, that variance to Section 17, Subdivision 2, 4a of the Zoning Code with respect to parking setback be approved for the 9 parking spaces abutting the east lie of the site in the northeast corner thereof. Said variance on the basis of particular shape and physical surroundings of the site. 5 That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a variance petitioned by B. W. and Leo Harris Co,, Cricket Inns and Perkins Cake and Steak to construct a pylon sign as located on the approved Perkins Site Plan and as appears by plans signed and dated May 7, 1975 by the Planning Commission Chairman subject to the following conditions. a. Sign specifications contained ,n Cricket Inn and Perkins Site Plan recommendations not be modified to further variance, b. No approval of a third sign tenant shall be hereby granted. MOTION 'CARRIED 5-2-0)' (Commissioners Davenport and Stewart against) MOTION CARRIED MOTION was made by Commissioner Threinen suppori-ed by Chairman; Kroskin i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 16- May 7 1975 that the Planningg Commission direct the City Counc a l S Rtte n 1on to Section19, Subdivision 2 la,- which at present time restricts the <granting of variances to permit signs in districts where such are: prohibited by ordinance. Nr}her, that the Commission recommend that the City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance to change Section 17, Subdi,,sion 1 2 to allow Planned Business Districts to have more than one pylon sign and business sign t; be similar to that which is allowed in shopping center B-2 districts presently. In support of his motion. Commissioner Threinen stated that the problems involved in the two distoicts are similar, that being visibility from morethanoneapproach, Planner Dillerud suggested that another solution might be to eliminate the Planned Business Development: entirely since there is very little B-1leftintheCity. MOTION CARRIED (5-2_0) (Commissioners .Davenport and Erickson against) MOTION CARRIED Minutes if the April 16, 1975 Planning Com-iiission Meeting Commissioner Erickson asked that the paragraph under the issue of Plymouth Freeway Center where he questioned the us,e being made of the 35 foot setback at the highway intersection be stricken from the record, Motion was made- by Commissioner Erickson supported by Commissioner Schneider to accept the minutes of the April 16, 1975 Planning Commission meeting .ascorrected MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) (Commissioner Threinen abstained) MOTION; CARRIED Commissioner Davenport stated that the Commission should be aware of the fact that it was recently ruled that McDonald's is a restaurant not a drive-in. He felt that it should be brought to the attention of the City Attorney so the Commission and the Council do not ruts into any problems, Commissioner Davenport commentedthat he felt the Planning Commission members and the Planning Staff ought to make an effort to be more in harmony in their meetings. Planner Dill erud stated that it the Commissioners have any particular feelings or questions about any pf the issues to be discussed, they ought to call ham to discuss the items before the meeting to. avoid major misunderstandings during the meeting. PLAN14I tiG COMMISSION tETING MINUTES _,17- May 7, 1975 Motion was made by CommissionerThreinen supported by Commissioner Hagen that the meeting he adjourned, The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION May 21, 1975 Reg Kroskin, Chairman Plymouth Planning Commission Charles E. Dillerud, Secretary